| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
February 14th 04, 02:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Leo writes: On 14 Feb 2004 00:05:49 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: In article , Leo writes: I should have written "non-hams considering getting a license." There are a couple of newsgroupies in here who demand adoration and dedication to the 'service' which they equate to 'interest.' :-) You really need to be more careful in your reading. Neither adoration nor dedication to the ARS has been deemed necessary, nor has any "demand" (one of your favorite words) been made. In your case, you've written of "interest" a number of times but have never quite been interested enough over the course of decades, to have actually taken an amateur radio exam. Few radio amateurs consider the whole of amateur radio. There's Len's false premise #1. Their activity is intensely personal, one-on-one with their radio. If using morse then they are devoid of normal human clues to the other contact's whole personality...no visuals, no voice tone, no clues to gender, no real sense of emotion of the other. That's no different from newsgroup posts, e-mails or even a letter. Voice mode is better with normal voice clues to the other party. I'd have to agree. If you aren't using a voice mode, you certainly aren't going to have any "voice clues". During all contacts on the radio they remain in a relatively isolated spectral bandwidth even if netted with several others. There is sufficiently long time for the mind to imagine many things about the 'service,' to expand far from its reality into realms of fantasy greatness. I know there must be a point here somewhere. Radio amateurs may use any mode authorized them. There are voice modes. There are modes which lack "voice clues". Those would include any keyboard mode as well as morse. Does your line about "fantasy greatness" come from your personal feelings of fantasy greatness? The major identification with the entirety of any national radio activity is publications of a special-interest nature. To a rather large extent in the USA, the ARRL uses their text to build upon the imagination of its readers, to identify with it. I see. Then National Geographic, Gun Digest, Southern Living, Gourmet, Field and Stream do the same. That lends reinforcement of the imaginary grouping, provides a "sense of belonging" otherwise not happening in radio use or even in a home workshop by themselves building something. Imaginary grouping? It isn't imaginary, Leonard. Being an amateur radio operator and belonging to the ARRL are very, very real. The sense of belonging comes from actually belonging. One can be as involved in the goings on or as uninvolved as one chooses. As a result of this insular activity having little in the way of regular human interaction with others, the individual amateur will use their own experiences in the hobby as a basis of what others are expected to do. Now we have Len's false premise #2. In reality, amateur radio is as much about interacting with others as anything else. Hams chew the rag on the air, via letters, on the telephone and on the internet. The self-identification of personal desire with what should be (in their minds) for others does not make a reasonable consideration of future regulations that affect many, many others, including those not yet licensed in amateur radio. Len's false premise #3. Any changes in amateur radio regulations have an effect on both those desiring entry into amateur radio and those currently licensed in amateur radio. What adds to the unreasonableness is the ignorance of what other radio services are doing and there being a great number of different radio 'service' people using, maintaining, designing non-amateur radios. It certainly isn't clear what is meant by the statement above. What other services do or don't do has little to do with what radio amateurs do or don't do. That's probably one of the reasons that there are *different* radio services. What is good for some point-to-point, channelized service isn't necessarily good for amateur radio. The idea that non-amateurs "not understanding" amateur radio is false and little more than an attempt at rationalization of their own ignorance. The idea that one who has no experience in using amateur radio has no real feel for amateur radio is no falsehood. Ignorance would be to assume that because one has experience in another service, that all of his experience in that service directly transfers to amateur radio. All radios work by the same laws of physics. All of everything seems to work by the same laws of physics as physics are now understood. Human made legislation does not change the way a 'service's' radio works... Of course not. Legislation regulates how they may or may not be used and where they may or may not be used. ...or that a non-amateur entering amateur radio be considered a "beginner." Now that you've seen your sentence broken in half, does it occur that it could use some work? A non-radio amateur who enters amateur radio is always going to be a beginner in amateur radio just as a non-painter who starts painting is a beginner in painting. Those who've just started driving taxicabs are beginners at driving a cab. Why not write what you really mean: that it chafes you to be thought of as a beginner. [I am certain there are Canadians as unreasonable as our esteamed robustness, Heil] Oh, you mean those who don't agree with you and who might agree with me? That's very likely. In fact, it is very likely that are quite a few of 'em. There is another factor which is common to those amateurs not engaged in a radio-specific occupation...that the state of the art of everything in amateur remain rooted in the familiar they know. It is tough to keep a running tally on the number of false premises. I think this one is #4. You'd have no idea of whether this happens in reality. Radio magazines are full of articles and adverts featuring new devices, new equipment and new ideas. A lot of what radio amateurs discuss is new devices, new equipment and new ideas. That's almost impossible since radio is only 107 years old and the technology involved has been advancing in large plateau jumps all the while. There's a masterful re-statment of the obvious! That is true of all electronics-related fields of work. It is true of many fields of endeavor. It doesn't make your previous statement correct. They want the state of the art to be fixed so they can enjoy what they found emotionally satisfying long ago when they reached their personal best in the hobby. Let's see, that's false premise #5, I believe. I've encountered no such thinking. Was your personal best in radio those days at ADA? Those are days you keep bringing up here? Others of the modern day are little interested in meeting antiquated standards of entering amateur radio. You mean *you* aren't interested in passing a morse code exam. Radio amateurs who have already achieved the top "upgrade" license class in their country would NOT be affected in their privileges. Their only "affect" is a psychological disturbance due to newcomers not having to do exactly as they did many years ago. True as well. Those who achieved their license under a more rigorous testing scheme will naturally see any reduction in testing requirements as an erosion of standards, and will be offended by it. That is simple human nature. Most affected by this are the folks at the top level of licensing. Which makes sense - they put in the greatest effort under the old system. Add to that the uncertainty of understanding modern radio, other than the emotionally-loaded advertisements for amateur radio equipment and to use that to be one up on their fellows. Why you condescending windbag! Where do you get the idea that no one but you can possibly understand modern radio? How did you get the idea that someone would only want the best equipment in order to play a game of one-upmanship? Did it ever occur to you that someone would want the best equipment because it can do the job better than something which isn't as good? It must chafe you to realize that someone obtains the latest transceiver, filled with all sorts of DSP tools and then uses those tools to assist in hearing a weak morse signal on a static-filled hunk of medium wave spectrum. That "simple human nature" aspect can alienate them in the eyes of others. Some of those do not profess to care citing their long tenure and alleged self-worthiness. Those are just trying to put "greatness" in the hobby activity by using themselves as top-level role models. I've observed "simple human nature" here when someone proclaims himself an advocate for regulation change in an activity in which he has no involvement. I've observed it in one who brings up his military service and insults the military service of others. Such "simple human nature" comes up when someone talks of his PROFESSIONAL credentials and accomplishments and insults the professional credentials and accomplishments of others. Do you have any idea of who I mean? It might be a guy who has little worthiness (self or otherwise), a guy who has no tenure, a guy who has no "greatness" and a guy who has little time to develop himself into any kind of role model within amateur radio. If you'd like to talk reality, Len, here's some for you: You aren't a radio amateur. You have no involvement in amateur radio. Exactly the same in this regard. They regulate, not placate.... Placation is for the membership organizations. In the USA the ARRL tries to pose as a second-level "government." Len's false premise #6. It is simply an Andersonian ploy to smear the ARRL with false accusations. Leonard, you are as involved in the affairs of the ARRL as you are with amateur radio. They are not but decades of propaganda have created a large following of Believers. It works very well for the ARRL; the propaganda is self-serving survival activity but Believers in the league will not believe they have been brainwashed. :-) In what do you believe, Leonard? Do you believe in amateur radio? Do you believe you'll ever be a participant in amateur radio? Do you believe that Dennis Kucinich has more support for his ideas than you for yours? Yup - there is clearly a notion that everyone who is not subjected to the same rigorous testing as they were years ago is somehow getting a free ride. What isn't being adequately taken in to account are the underlying reasons for simplification, elimination or change of the various test elements. Much of that resentment is strictly personal, about themselves. How much of your obvious resentment of radio amateurs and the ARRL is strictly personal--about you? Such clouds judgement on what might be good for all, especially those not yet licensed. As one who is not yet licensed, do you believe your judgment on amateur radio issues might be clouded by your personal feelings? What has been stable, or relatively so over the years is known, familiar. Such stability can be comforting. Change, newness is to be avoided since an unknown condition can cause much anxiety. Then too, personal rank, status, title might lessen if regulations change to remove some of that. You can take comfort in the known, Len. You're still not a radio amateur. You have nothing to do with the changes, lack of them, rank, status, titles within amateur radio. I believe that IC was simply giving the amateur community first chance to voice their opinion - not from the perspective of a closed shop per se, but because they wanted to hear the opinions of those currently involved in the hobby before they decided what to do next. I'm no expert in the inner workings of the government here, but I believe that NPRM is the next step, and public comment is requested at that stage. I see little wrong with that to get an INITIAL opinion by any regulator. I see lots wrong with it if the regulators do not hear from others prior to decisions. You've been heard from. Regulators are not mandated to take positive action on your views. Remember, with no incentive licensing scheme here, the perception of a 'class structure' of a hierarchical nature is not nearly as prevalent. Most of the folks I have talked to welcome the elimination of code testing - after all, it isn;t code that is being eliminated, just the mandatory practical test - which only survived as far as 2003 because of the ITU requirements. In the poll submitted from the amateur community to IC, almost two thirds of the lecensed amateurs here want code testing dropped from our requirements! Approximately the opposite of the ARRL numbers bandied about here.... The decades of propaganda by the ARRL is showing up in the un- swerving Belief that the old ways are still supposed to be best. Part of that (on the part of ARRL) has been the catering to the insularity of amateurs, of keeping the status as much quo as possible so as not to upset the old-time amateur membership. I think you may have the cart before the horse. Quite a number of long time League members support continued morse testing. It is in the ARRL's best interest to consider the views of its core membership, those who provide money, while doing a delicate balancing act in trying to attract new members. The League does cater to the insularity of radio amateurs. Catering to the insularity of radio fields is left to other organizations which don't want to upset their core memberships. By the way, it is quite possible that the FCC was all for BPL from the first. Possible? That fact was impossible to miss. It took surgeons several hours to remove Kathleen Abernathy's shoe from her yap. The NOI or Notice of Inquiry was NOT about whether or not the service should exist...the Notice Of Inquiry was for the purposes of determining what the standards of RFI should be. Almost none of the 5,199 documents submitted any such standards or levels. :-) All were caught up in a wildfire confligration of opinion saying "BPL is BAD!" That all took place, no doubt, because BPL at HF and the lower VHF frequencies is BAD. The FCC has had an intenal program to improve rural America's tie to the Internet. BPL would fit right in with that noble goal. Connection to the Internet over existing power lines involves very, very little additional cost to anyone. Almost no one has bothered to think of that side of the equation. Lots of people have considered that side. Cost isn't everything. The FCC denied amateurs a slice of LF spectrum based largely upon the idea that such operation (at very low power) could interfere with electric company low level communications via the power grid. The law of reciprocity hasn't been repealed. From what I'm hearing on the group, specifically WRT incentive licensing several years ago, they seemed to ignore the will of the majority and come up with something on their own.....which seems to have annoyed everyone. Oh well, at least they got everyone to agree on something! Sigh. More human nature. Since certain sides didn't get their way, they quaff the juice of fermented spoiled grapes...they whine before the time. :-) Are you writing of your personal feelings that the FCC has not yet done away with morse testing in amateur radio or are you writing of your bitterness that you've not yet attained that "Extra right out of the box" or any other amateur radio license? Many demand that the "majority" of anything do as they do or that what they do IS what the "majority" does. They are absolutely, poselutely for-sure knowing such, cannot be considered otherwise. You've been DEMANDING that radio amateurs do as you wish. You aren't even involved. Why the feelings that you know what is right for amateur radio? Why can't you consider otherwise? The caste system of the "IL" or Incentive Licensing definitely exists in USA amateur radio and continues today. It fits to a T the notion of (or desire of) some who NEED some way to show they are "better than others" through some sort of federal whatsis. Now that Internet has robbed much of the ARRL's monopoly on communications direct with the FCC, the FCC might be seeing a different picture of what the feelings are in USA amateur radio. Don't let the actuality of how incentive licensing came to be detract from a wild-eyed rant, Len. ARRL still doesn't have more than a quarter of all USA licensees as members. They were always a minority group but had sufficent income from publication profits to afford legal counsel and a lobbying company in Washington, DC. At one time back the FCC just rubber-stamped what the ARRL wanted. Not so anymore. Your disingenuous side shines brightly, Len. The ARRL "minority" has been for decades, the largest organization of radio amateurs by an enormous margin. Rubber stamp this. Dave K8MN |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Threaded Mode
